hosting at 3:05p-5:30p ET today on WBT/Charlotte.
President Obama says all is well as economy continues to slide....but he thinks more school days for your kid is the answer. Why? So that the government has more time to indoctrinate them with no discipline? He says he knows that it won't be popular but.....
Only 41% favor Obamacare now....that is better but what is wrong with that 41%? That is still way too high.
Iran is doing missile tests. I've told you for 3 years that Iran is our biggest threat. According to stories today, Obama knew of the Iranian nuke base from the beginning but hasn't done any thing about it.
Look forward to taking to you today! Feel free to email me: Doug@Dougtalks.com
Doug Kellett @idougradio
Doug Kellett
- Doug Kellett's Daily Blog
- I have more than 30 years of news/talk/sports hosting experience including management of stations in Nashville, Denver and Columbus(GA). I often can be heard in some of the largest markets in the US and great stations like KOA/Denver, 630 KHOW/Denver, 600 KCOL/Ft. Colllins, CO, WOAI/San Antonio, KTRH and KPRC/Houston, WLS/Chicago, KKDA/Pittsburgh, WLAC/Nashville, WBT/Charlotte, Fox News/Ft. Myers-Naples, FL, 106.3 WORD-FM/Greenville-Spartanburg, SC and many other stations.
Live today on WRVA/Richmond at 3pm ET
4:35p ET ...I'll be join by Vern Moter to discuss the cash for clunkers fiasco and as President Obama pushes for the public option, moderate republicans say No.
5:05p ET...Virginians are concerned about giving more power to the Federal Reserve as suggested yesterday by President Obama.
SEPT 11, 2009 8 Years Later
Here we are. Eight years following 9/11/2001 and many Americans have forgotten. So much so that many experts I interview say that it will take "another 911" to "wake up the American people." Why would we need another 911 to get our attention? It could be because a large segment of our population doesn't like to remember what happened on this date eight years ago. It is buried deep in their memory as if the war against the Terrorists is over. It isn't over and the man behind the 911 attack remains at-large Osama Ben Laden. That, in itself, is inexcusable. We attempted to fight a politically correct war and he remains on the loose. Plotting, no doubt, to strike again. While I supported President Bush and his fight against Al Queda, I find fault with the half measure we fought the war. Much of it because of the public sentiment led by democrats in Congress.
As for that day itself, the one thing that I remember most is what a beautiful Tuesday it was. Not a cloud in the sky in Nashville, TN (where I was). It was a very pleasant cool early September day as far as the weather was concerned. I was back in my hometown because I had recently changed jobs after hosting on the radio in Columbus(GA) for 14 years at WRCG/WCGQ. My new job as Program Director of WWTN-FM/Nashville was about three weeks old. So, still getting my feet wet with a new job, I found myself hosting the morning show that morning because our host Steve Gill was out sick. If you know Steve, you know that Steve has to be REALLY sick to miss any time on the air. For me, my first time to host on WWTN. Rhett Harris was hosting news, Kevin Ingram with sports and Pamela Furr was producer. The show began at 5:30am and I don't even remember what subjects were discussing when Pam brought me a note that a "plane has hit the world trade center in NYC." This didn't cause me immediate alarm and I said something on the air about the note but that small planes are known to hit tall buildings in New York City on occasion. I couldn't fathom that this was any thing but that. I had reported on such small craft incidents before and I was confident this was it. I said something like "we'll have more on the story coming up at the top of the hour." A few minutes passed and we were into the top of the hour news at 8am(Nashville time). I'm still not alarmed but Pam switched on the cable news channels(usually the TV was set on ESPN because of the afternoon sports show from the day before). Rhett and I watched the TV coverage showing a large hole in one of the Towers of the World Trade Center and we both said that no small plane had hit that building. I remember saying to Rhett that looks the size of a passenger plane. While we were discussing this during a commercial break, Kevin got ready for his sports minute.
"..Now with Supertalk997 sports, here is Kevin Ingram." I said.
Both Rhett and I went back to watching the TV while Kevin was voicing the sports headlines. Like many of you, while we watched, we saw what we later realized was the second plane that hit the other tower. All I can say is that our reaction in the talk studio and control room was of a jolt. Pam was jumping up and down pointing to the TV she was watching behind the glass that separated control from the talk studio. Her eyes were wide and I know I must have frowned as what I had seen wasn't fully registering. Did I see video of the FIRST plane that hit the building and TV had caught it, or was this a second? Rhett and I looked at each other in disbelief as Kevin was finishing his sports. As soon as Kevin finished, I remember saying something like "Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't believe what I just saw..." And as I described that we just saw another airplane hit the tower, I said something like "how can this happen?" and Rhett blurted out "we are under a terrorist attack!" and then said something about a Tom Clancy novel. I looked at Rhett and had to acknowledge he was right. It was from then, we went into a full scale news mode realizing this was the biggest story we would likely cover in our lifetime. As I learned in the next couple of minutes, WWTN didn't have a way to patch a national broadcast onto our air.
An unbelievable situation I thought as in the past my stations always had a way to go immediately to network coverage. This was one of the short comings of the station that I had been recently hired to fix. I'm yelling to Pam to get an engineer and she responded quickly realizing the importance. With a sense of urgency our engineers had our network coverage (ABC) up and running within the hour. Until then, I commented on what what I knew. The swift action by our team may still have beaten our competition to the punch. I was told later that we had a 90 share the week after 911 as our station became the station of information during the immediate aftermath.
My other recollection of the day is speaking with my GM in the studio after we had gone to network coverage and saying to him "we are at war...this is big...and I'm not sure we know at this moment how big this really is...but...it is big." In a decision that I have come to have great respect, John Padgett, General Manager for WWTN-FM. WSM-FM and WSM decided on the spot not to air any commercials...until further notice! The day itself at the station is a blurr but I do remember driving home late that afternoon and realizing how eerie it was that no planes were flying. My house was near the airport and if you know how busy the Nashville airport is, it would have made an impression on you as well. Our station, WWTN-FM, built on the listeners that trusted us that day and we became a force in the Nashville market for over two years. I will always be thankful for the staff who were top notch professionals that day!
As for that day itself, the one thing that I remember most is what a beautiful Tuesday it was. Not a cloud in the sky in Nashville, TN (where I was). It was a very pleasant cool early September day as far as the weather was concerned. I was back in my hometown because I had recently changed jobs after hosting on the radio in Columbus(GA) for 14 years at WRCG/WCGQ. My new job as Program Director of WWTN-FM/Nashville was about three weeks old. So, still getting my feet wet with a new job, I found myself hosting the morning show that morning because our host Steve Gill was out sick. If you know Steve, you know that Steve has to be REALLY sick to miss any time on the air. For me, my first time to host on WWTN. Rhett Harris was hosting news, Kevin Ingram with sports and Pamela Furr was producer. The show began at 5:30am and I don't even remember what subjects were discussing when Pam brought me a note that a "plane has hit the world trade center in NYC." This didn't cause me immediate alarm and I said something on the air about the note but that small planes are known to hit tall buildings in New York City on occasion. I couldn't fathom that this was any thing but that. I had reported on such small craft incidents before and I was confident this was it. I said something like "we'll have more on the story coming up at the top of the hour." A few minutes passed and we were into the top of the hour news at 8am(Nashville time). I'm still not alarmed but Pam switched on the cable news channels(usually the TV was set on ESPN because of the afternoon sports show from the day before). Rhett and I watched the TV coverage showing a large hole in one of the Towers of the World Trade Center and we both said that no small plane had hit that building. I remember saying to Rhett that looks the size of a passenger plane. While we were discussing this during a commercial break, Kevin got ready for his sports minute.
"..Now with Supertalk997 sports, here is Kevin Ingram." I said.
Both Rhett and I went back to watching the TV while Kevin was voicing the sports headlines. Like many of you, while we watched, we saw what we later realized was the second plane that hit the other tower. All I can say is that our reaction in the talk studio and control room was of a jolt. Pam was jumping up and down pointing to the TV she was watching behind the glass that separated control from the talk studio. Her eyes were wide and I know I must have frowned as what I had seen wasn't fully registering. Did I see video of the FIRST plane that hit the building and TV had caught it, or was this a second? Rhett and I looked at each other in disbelief as Kevin was finishing his sports. As soon as Kevin finished, I remember saying something like "Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't believe what I just saw..." And as I described that we just saw another airplane hit the tower, I said something like "how can this happen?" and Rhett blurted out "we are under a terrorist attack!" and then said something about a Tom Clancy novel. I looked at Rhett and had to acknowledge he was right. It was from then, we went into a full scale news mode realizing this was the biggest story we would likely cover in our lifetime. As I learned in the next couple of minutes, WWTN didn't have a way to patch a national broadcast onto our air.
An unbelievable situation I thought as in the past my stations always had a way to go immediately to network coverage. This was one of the short comings of the station that I had been recently hired to fix. I'm yelling to Pam to get an engineer and she responded quickly realizing the importance. With a sense of urgency our engineers had our network coverage (ABC) up and running within the hour. Until then, I commented on what what I knew. The swift action by our team may still have beaten our competition to the punch. I was told later that we had a 90 share the week after 911 as our station became the station of information during the immediate aftermath.
One of my staff, James, who was our second amendment guy at the station, came to me and said that he was "packing" (which was against Gaylord Entertainment policy) and was ready if the Bastards tried anything around here. Gaylord Security had locked down the hotel and radio station area and James shadowed me the rest of the day. I was too busy to worry about terrorist hitting us.
My other recollection of the day is speaking with my GM in the studio after we had gone to network coverage and saying to him "we are at war...this is big...and I'm not sure we know at this moment how big this really is...but...it is big." In a decision that I have come to have great respect, John Padgett, General Manager for WWTN-FM. WSM-FM and WSM decided on the spot not to air any commercials...until further notice! The day itself at the station is a blurr but I do remember driving home late that afternoon and realizing how eerie it was that no planes were flying. My house was near the airport and if you know how busy the Nashville airport is, it would have made an impression on you as well. Our station, WWTN-FM, built on the listeners that trusted us that day and we became a force in the Nashville market for over two years. I will always be thankful for the staff who were top notch professionals that day!
Wednesday Briefing
Friday, I'll give you my take on where we are 8 years after 9/11 and why so many experts think we need another 9/11 to get the attention of the American people.
Coming up next Tuesday and Wednesday...Live on WRVA/Richmond from 3-6pm ET. You can watch/listen live here by clicking on the Blog TV box at the right of the screen. Station web site is wwww.WRVA.com
Another Ft. Benning solidier is questioning President Obama's legitimacy under the U.S. Constitution requirement that he be "natural born" citizen. Despite the left's adamant statements that Obama was born in Hawaii, no indisputable documents are public to prove that assertion. The solidier says they will not be deployed.
Matt Burke wrote this for our web site on the Ft. Benning solidier issue:
Some advice for the birther movement
By: Matt Burke
September 9, 2009
The internet world buzzed this past weekend with the news that a Kenyan birth certificate showing that President Obama was born in Kenya was revealed. Then yesterday, Judge David Carter, a US District Court Judge in California, set a court date in late January for one of the cases challenging President Obama’s nationality.
Lets take each of these individually. First, the Kenyan birth certificate.
There are many potential problems that I see with this evidence. First, the affidavit that was attached to the birth certificate offered testimony that the person who retrieved the document, a Lucas Daniel Smith, had to pay a “cash consideration” to a military officer to look the other way while the birth certificate was being retrieved. A good attorney, rigorously defending the President, could drive a truck through Mr. Smith’s credibility (if he paid a guard to look the other way, could more money paid to this person have produced a fraudulent copy?). That same attorney would have a good case to have the present copy of the Kenyan birth certificate thrown out as not being a properly validated public record, and as such, would be inadmissible hearsay.
There may also be other problems with the certificate, ones that would easily expose it to be possibly accurate, or a fraud. First, there is a certificate number in the top left corner. Is that number consistent with a birth in August, 1961? Also, there is a footprint at the bottom. Did Kenya even process new births this way in 1961, and of course, does that print even match the President? The certificate is also signed by a John Odomo; was he employed by the hospital in August, 1961? There is also a signature of the attending doctor that can be similarly challenged.
A wrong answer to any of these would be fatal.
Now, on to the case. Before the case is to be heard in January, 2010, the court has scheduled two motions to be addressed by the Court. The first is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by the US Attorneys Office, claiming that this case should be immediately dismissed for a number of reasons, including that the plaintiffs do not have standing, and that the Court does not have the authority to hear the case. I would put the government’s odds of winning this motion at 70%.
If the plaintiffs survive that Motion, then the Court is going to consider the discovery requests filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested discovery includes the President’s kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. The Government has objected to all of these.
The standards for producing discovery are low, the requests just have to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the evidence itself, however, does not have to be admissible. However, objections can be made for timeliness of the records (most of these are over 20 years old) and they must relate to the current claims made by the plaintiffs. Based on the fact that the plaintiffs are only seeking to determine the President’s nationality, some of these requests go beyond the claims made by the plaintiffs and I would expect them to be denied by the Judge. These would include the Columbia thesis, Harvard Law review articles (which would be published anyway), scholarly articles from the University of Chicago (also published), medical records, and files from his years as an Illinois State Senator as being outside the bounds of the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Also present in the discovery requests is a request to have the judge order the Secretary of State to obtain a certified copy of the original birth certificate from Kenya. As Kenya is a sovereign country not subject to an order from an US Judge, Kenya would have to be pressured by the US State Department. How aggressively would former rival Hillary Clinton pursue this request, an analysis which is better presented in its own column- should this case proceed that far.
After discovery, the US Attorneys Office would certainly file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which essentially asks if there are any matters of fact in dispute that should be decided by a jury. If there are none, then the case would be decided by the judge. If discovery does not produce any evidence that shows President Obama is anything but a natural born American citizen, then this case will be dismissed—and it would most likely be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that this case can never be re-filed.
So, for the birthers out there, very little has happened. Odds are that this case will be dismissed before it ever gets to trial, as a case based only on supposition and hearsay testimony will not find its way into a courtroom. The system is designed to prevent that from happening.
As a word of advice, I would remind the conservatives out there that much damage has been done to the Democrats over the past two months simply by engaging them in the marketplace of ideas. We have fundamentally weakened the domestic policy of the administration to such a level that there is an outside chance that Republicans will take over the House of Representatives after the 2010 election. If we continue to focus our attention on the flawed policies of the Democratic Party, we can regain our power without having to resort to long shot court cases based on weak evidence.
Email today from terrorism expert Ken Timmerman. He has a great column today at www.Newsmax.com
A note from Ken Timmerman:
“Honor Killings” get underplayed in the U.S. Media, which kowtows to Muslim apologists and claims that when Muslim girls and young women are murdered by their male relatives, they are merely victims of domestic violence.
17-old Rifqa Bary – the Ohio teen who fled her family after they discovered they had converted to Christianity – is an honor killing victim in the making.
Media exposure at Newsmax and elsewhere is helping to prevent this tragedy from occurring.
As I reported on Thursday, a Florida court has temporarily thrwarted efforts by Rifqa’s family to get her back to Ohio.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.html
To learn more how honor killings are actually conceived of and planned, see
http://kentimmerman.com/honor-killing.html
Even if you don’t read the book, you should read the blurb – and take a look at the on-line resources, here:
http://kentimmerman.com/hk-web.html
Today, Pamela Geller provides an update on the Rifqa Bary story at Newsmax.
http://www.newsmax.com/pamela_geller/rifqa_bary_islam_convert/2009/09/08/257464.html
Finally, if you want a detailed, academic account of how extensive Muslim honor kiilling has become in America, read this chilling essay by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, whom I cite at the end of my Newsmax article, below.
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
Best,
Ken Timmerman
Teen Christian Convert Bary Fears Mosque with Terror Ties
Friday, September 4, 2009 9:21 AM
Newsmax.com
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
17-year old Rifqa Bary, who fled her Muslim family in Ohio this summer after they suspected she had converted to Christianity, will stay in Florida for the time being, an Orlando, Florida judge decided on Thursday.
Circuit Court Judge Daniel Dawson issued a gag order on all lawyers involved in the case after a lawyer for the girl’s mother started to quote from a sealed law enforcement document during Thursday’s hearing, to argue that the girl faced no danger if she was returned to her family.
The sealed document, an investigative report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), included a videotaped interview with the 17-year old girl, where apparently she did not mention any fear of returning home.
However, the girl’s court-appointed guardian told the court that Rifqa had felt intimidated by the law enforcement officers who interviewed her and objected because the interview had been conducted without the presence of her lawyer.
In an affidavit presented to the court on Monday, Rifqa said she left home on July 17 after her father threatened to kill her because she had become a Christian.
“In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waived it over my head as if to strike me with it and said 'If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter.' I continued to remain silent and then he said to me even more angry than before, 'I will kill you! Tell me the truth!'"
The case has attracted national attention, because Rifqa’s flight from her family in pursuit of religious freedom shatters one of the myths that Muslim advocacy groups are so keen to purvey.
[...]
Read the full story here:
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.htmlT
Coming up next Tuesday and Wednesday...Live on WRVA/Richmond from 3-6pm ET. You can watch/listen live here by clicking on the Blog TV box at the right of the screen. Station web site is wwww.WRVA.com
Another Ft. Benning solidier is questioning President Obama's legitimacy under the U.S. Constitution requirement that he be "natural born" citizen. Despite the left's adamant statements that Obama was born in Hawaii, no indisputable documents are public to prove that assertion. The solidier says they will not be deployed.
Matt Burke wrote this for our web site on the Ft. Benning solidier issue:
Some advice for the birther movement
By: Matt Burke
September 9, 2009
The internet world buzzed this past weekend with the news that a Kenyan birth certificate showing that President Obama was born in Kenya was revealed. Then yesterday, Judge David Carter, a US District Court Judge in California, set a court date in late January for one of the cases challenging President Obama’s nationality.
Lets take each of these individually. First, the Kenyan birth certificate.
There are many potential problems that I see with this evidence. First, the affidavit that was attached to the birth certificate offered testimony that the person who retrieved the document, a Lucas Daniel Smith, had to pay a “cash consideration” to a military officer to look the other way while the birth certificate was being retrieved. A good attorney, rigorously defending the President, could drive a truck through Mr. Smith’s credibility (if he paid a guard to look the other way, could more money paid to this person have produced a fraudulent copy?). That same attorney would have a good case to have the present copy of the Kenyan birth certificate thrown out as not being a properly validated public record, and as such, would be inadmissible hearsay.
There may also be other problems with the certificate, ones that would easily expose it to be possibly accurate, or a fraud. First, there is a certificate number in the top left corner. Is that number consistent with a birth in August, 1961? Also, there is a footprint at the bottom. Did Kenya even process new births this way in 1961, and of course, does that print even match the President? The certificate is also signed by a John Odomo; was he employed by the hospital in August, 1961? There is also a signature of the attending doctor that can be similarly challenged.
A wrong answer to any of these would be fatal.
Now, on to the case. Before the case is to be heard in January, 2010, the court has scheduled two motions to be addressed by the Court. The first is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by the US Attorneys Office, claiming that this case should be immediately dismissed for a number of reasons, including that the plaintiffs do not have standing, and that the Court does not have the authority to hear the case. I would put the government’s odds of winning this motion at 70%.
If the plaintiffs survive that Motion, then the Court is going to consider the discovery requests filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested discovery includes the President’s kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records. The Government has objected to all of these.
The standards for producing discovery are low, the requests just have to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the evidence itself, however, does not have to be admissible. However, objections can be made for timeliness of the records (most of these are over 20 years old) and they must relate to the current claims made by the plaintiffs. Based on the fact that the plaintiffs are only seeking to determine the President’s nationality, some of these requests go beyond the claims made by the plaintiffs and I would expect them to be denied by the Judge. These would include the Columbia thesis, Harvard Law review articles (which would be published anyway), scholarly articles from the University of Chicago (also published), medical records, and files from his years as an Illinois State Senator as being outside the bounds of the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Also present in the discovery requests is a request to have the judge order the Secretary of State to obtain a certified copy of the original birth certificate from Kenya. As Kenya is a sovereign country not subject to an order from an US Judge, Kenya would have to be pressured by the US State Department. How aggressively would former rival Hillary Clinton pursue this request, an analysis which is better presented in its own column- should this case proceed that far.
After discovery, the US Attorneys Office would certainly file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which essentially asks if there are any matters of fact in dispute that should be decided by a jury. If there are none, then the case would be decided by the judge. If discovery does not produce any evidence that shows President Obama is anything but a natural born American citizen, then this case will be dismissed—and it would most likely be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that this case can never be re-filed.
So, for the birthers out there, very little has happened. Odds are that this case will be dismissed before it ever gets to trial, as a case based only on supposition and hearsay testimony will not find its way into a courtroom. The system is designed to prevent that from happening.
As a word of advice, I would remind the conservatives out there that much damage has been done to the Democrats over the past two months simply by engaging them in the marketplace of ideas. We have fundamentally weakened the domestic policy of the administration to such a level that there is an outside chance that Republicans will take over the House of Representatives after the 2010 election. If we continue to focus our attention on the flawed policies of the Democratic Party, we can regain our power without having to resort to long shot court cases based on weak evidence.
Email today from terrorism expert Ken Timmerman. He has a great column today at www.Newsmax.com
A note from Ken Timmerman:
“Honor Killings” get underplayed in the U.S. Media, which kowtows to Muslim apologists and claims that when Muslim girls and young women are murdered by their male relatives, they are merely victims of domestic violence.
17-old Rifqa Bary – the Ohio teen who fled her family after they discovered they had converted to Christianity – is an honor killing victim in the making.
Media exposure at Newsmax and elsewhere is helping to prevent this tragedy from occurring.
As I reported on Thursday, a Florida court has temporarily thrwarted efforts by Rifqa’s family to get her back to Ohio.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.html
To learn more how honor killings are actually conceived of and planned, see
http://kentimmerman.com/honor-killing.html
Even if you don’t read the book, you should read the blurb – and take a look at the on-line resources, here:
http://kentimmerman.com/hk-web.html
Today, Pamela Geller provides an update on the Rifqa Bary story at Newsmax.
http://www.newsmax.com/pamela_geller/rifqa_bary_islam_convert/2009/09/08/257464.html
Finally, if you want a detailed, academic account of how extensive Muslim honor kiilling has become in America, read this chilling essay by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, whom I cite at the end of my Newsmax article, below.
http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
Best,
Ken Timmerman
Teen Christian Convert Bary Fears Mosque with Terror Ties
Friday, September 4, 2009 9:21 AM
Newsmax.com
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
17-year old Rifqa Bary, who fled her Muslim family in Ohio this summer after they suspected she had converted to Christianity, will stay in Florida for the time being, an Orlando, Florida judge decided on Thursday.
Circuit Court Judge Daniel Dawson issued a gag order on all lawyers involved in the case after a lawyer for the girl’s mother started to quote from a sealed law enforcement document during Thursday’s hearing, to argue that the girl faced no danger if she was returned to her family.
The sealed document, an investigative report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), included a videotaped interview with the 17-year old girl, where apparently she did not mention any fear of returning home.
However, the girl’s court-appointed guardian told the court that Rifqa had felt intimidated by the law enforcement officers who interviewed her and objected because the interview had been conducted without the presence of her lawyer.
In an affidavit presented to the court on Monday, Rifqa said she left home on July 17 after her father threatened to kill her because she had become a Christian.
“In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waived it over my head as if to strike me with it and said 'If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter.' I continued to remain silent and then he said to me even more angry than before, 'I will kill you! Tell me the truth!'"
The case has attracted national attention, because Rifqa’s flight from her family in pursuit of religious freedom shatters one of the myths that Muslim advocacy groups are so keen to purvey.
[...]
Read the full story here:
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/rifqa_bary_scared_mosque/2009/09/04/256426.htmlT
More on Obama and the internet
My friend Jim Kouri whose columns appear on the right side of the page has an article regarding Obama's cyber takeover. Good piece to read along with Matt Burke's article if you scroll down this page.
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news162.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news162.htm
Wednesday Briefing
Got this email from www.Townhall.com:
Dear Townhall Reader:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'"
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.
This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.
Dear Townhall Reader:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'"
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.
This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.
Tuesday Briefing
UPDATED---
Can the President seize control of the Internet in an Emergency?
By: Matt Burke
August 31, 2009
This morning, much of the chattering class is abuzz with the rumors that President Obama is attempting to seize control of the internet. A post on Redstate.com this morning summarizes well the proposal: “S. 773, a bill by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, has a 55-page draft bill that would create new “emergency” powers for the President, a ‘cybersecurity’ Enabling Act of sorts, that would give the President the authority broad powers over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.””[1]
If the President were to get these powers, it would just be the latest in a historical series of Presidential power grabs that have been criticized later. Such would include President Jefferson shutting down the Supreme Court, President Jackson openly defying a Supreme Court ruling, President Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and President Franklin Roosevelt interning Japanese American citizens. Neil Stevens Redstate.com post details President Truman attempts to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War and how the Supreme Court denied him this authority in the Youngstown decision.
In short, Youngstown, through Justice Jackson’s concurrence, states that Presidential authority is at its highest point when it is exercising Constitutional authority granted by a bill from Congress. Presidential authority is at its weakest when it has neither Congressional approval nor Constitutional authority. The area in between is known as a “twilight zone”.
Presumably, S.773 is designed to prevent a massive cyber-attack on the United States, similar to the plot of the movie Die Hard: Live Free or Die Hard, one that would paralyze the country and steal national security, or billions of dollars. Think of the Y2K crisis and how our weaknesses and reliance on computers were exposed. Thankfully, nothing came from the Y2K crisis
If the President were to be given the “emergency” power to seize control of the internet by an act of Congress, would it stand Constitutional scrutiny? Possibly. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the internet is certainly an instrument for interstate commerce.
Also, using the Die Hard analogy above, such a power would be under national security, and our nation’s military forces do have cyber security as part of their mission. Recent news reports reveal attempted cyber attacks on the Federal Government’s websites from North Korea and China; however these attempts have been happening for years. Countries no longer need guns, planes or missiles to attack another country; soldiers armed with laptops from thousands of miles away can cripple a country. The threat is real.
So, under Youngstown, the President would be exercising Constitutional authority under a grant from Congress, either as a national security power or interstate commerce.
However, if these powers were used to circumvent the First Amendment, such as to control blog posts or YouTube postings of protests, then we as citizens have a right to be alarmed. Also, what about the Fourth Amendment protections of the citizens to be secure in the papers, persons and effects without unreasonable search and seizure? Does S.773 grant the President an open ended warrant to search and seize whenever he/she feels is appropriate on any computer attached to the internet? Such a warrant would be easily challenged in any court.
Putting my political hat on, I would be surprised if this bill were to be passed as proposed. Silicon Valley has a strong history of donations and power to the Democratic Party, and I would be shocked if the Democrats were to abandon their own, especially coming in an election year, one where the Democrats will need all the money and support that they can get from their party faithful.
Taking off the political hat and putting the legal one back on, if this bill were to be passed and signed, there is little we can do to challenge it until it is actually used against someone. I suppose that various media outlets could seek an injunction preventing the bill from applying to them, but that will not touch the other portions of the bill. If this power were to be used as a limited, national security defense that returns the internet to a “status quo ante” after a cyber attack, then the courts would probably look favorably upon this. If it is used a control device over the population, then hopefully the courts would resist.
If I were to craft the legislation, I would put in a provision that if the President were to exercise authority under this statute, he/she must present a case before the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court within 48 hours for review and clearance. The FISA Court is adept at hearing National Security cases and keeping the facts secret (to my knowledge, there has never been a leak from the FISA Court). It would also be at the Court’s discretion to have regular reviews of the President’s actions, to make sure that the President is only using his authority for a limited period of time. This would provide an appropriate level of review and protection, ensuring that all three branches would be involved in the process.
[1] Neil Stevens, “Democrats Echo Truman and Threaten to Nationalize the Internet”, http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/29/democrats-echo-truman-and-threaten-to-nationalize-internet/, August 31, 2009
Can the President seize control of the Internet in an Emergency?
By: Matt Burke
August 31, 2009
This morning, much of the chattering class is abuzz with the rumors that President Obama is attempting to seize control of the internet. A post on Redstate.com this morning summarizes well the proposal: “S. 773, a bill by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, has a 55-page draft bill that would create new “emergency” powers for the President, a ‘cybersecurity’ Enabling Act of sorts, that would give the President the authority broad powers over any “non-governmental” computer networks, whether public or private, that are declared by the President to be “critical.””[1]
If the President were to get these powers, it would just be the latest in a historical series of Presidential power grabs that have been criticized later. Such would include President Jefferson shutting down the Supreme Court, President Jackson openly defying a Supreme Court ruling, President Lincoln arresting newspaper editors and President Franklin Roosevelt interning Japanese American citizens. Neil Stevens Redstate.com post details President Truman attempts to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War and how the Supreme Court denied him this authority in the Youngstown decision.
In short, Youngstown, through Justice Jackson’s concurrence, states that Presidential authority is at its highest point when it is exercising Constitutional authority granted by a bill from Congress. Presidential authority is at its weakest when it has neither Congressional approval nor Constitutional authority. The area in between is known as a “twilight zone”.
Presumably, S.773 is designed to prevent a massive cyber-attack on the United States, similar to the plot of the movie Die Hard: Live Free or Die Hard, one that would paralyze the country and steal national security, or billions of dollars. Think of the Y2K crisis and how our weaknesses and reliance on computers were exposed. Thankfully, nothing came from the Y2K crisis
If the President were to be given the “emergency” power to seize control of the internet by an act of Congress, would it stand Constitutional scrutiny? Possibly. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the internet is certainly an instrument for interstate commerce.
Also, using the Die Hard analogy above, such a power would be under national security, and our nation’s military forces do have cyber security as part of their mission. Recent news reports reveal attempted cyber attacks on the Federal Government’s websites from North Korea and China; however these attempts have been happening for years. Countries no longer need guns, planes or missiles to attack another country; soldiers armed with laptops from thousands of miles away can cripple a country. The threat is real.
So, under Youngstown, the President would be exercising Constitutional authority under a grant from Congress, either as a national security power or interstate commerce.
However, if these powers were used to circumvent the First Amendment, such as to control blog posts or YouTube postings of protests, then we as citizens have a right to be alarmed. Also, what about the Fourth Amendment protections of the citizens to be secure in the papers, persons and effects without unreasonable search and seizure? Does S.773 grant the President an open ended warrant to search and seize whenever he/she feels is appropriate on any computer attached to the internet? Such a warrant would be easily challenged in any court.
Putting my political hat on, I would be surprised if this bill were to be passed as proposed. Silicon Valley has a strong history of donations and power to the Democratic Party, and I would be shocked if the Democrats were to abandon their own, especially coming in an election year, one where the Democrats will need all the money and support that they can get from their party faithful.
Taking off the political hat and putting the legal one back on, if this bill were to be passed and signed, there is little we can do to challenge it until it is actually used against someone. I suppose that various media outlets could seek an injunction preventing the bill from applying to them, but that will not touch the other portions of the bill. If this power were to be used as a limited, national security defense that returns the internet to a “status quo ante” after a cyber attack, then the courts would probably look favorably upon this. If it is used a control device over the population, then hopefully the courts would resist.
If I were to craft the legislation, I would put in a provision that if the President were to exercise authority under this statute, he/she must present a case before the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court within 48 hours for review and clearance. The FISA Court is adept at hearing National Security cases and keeping the facts secret (to my knowledge, there has never been a leak from the FISA Court). It would also be at the Court’s discretion to have regular reviews of the President’s actions, to make sure that the President is only using his authority for a limited period of time. This would provide an appropriate level of review and protection, ensuring that all three branches would be involved in the process.
[1] Neil Stevens, “Democrats Echo Truman and Threaten to Nationalize the Internet”, http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/29/democrats-echo-truman-and-threaten-to-nationalize-internet/, August 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
